Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2008

The State Party submitted a progress report to the World Heritage Centre dated 1 February 2008.

The joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission was carried out from 18 to 21 February 2008 to review the proposed bridge construction of the Verige crossing and the overall situation of the property, following the submission of the draft management plan for the World Heritage property. The mission carefully considered the bridge proposal and expressed its concern about potential impacts and recommended a number of steps to be taken before any final decisions are taken on the bridge proposal. It also recommended the implementation of the management plan for effective management and protection of the property and the overall sustainability of its socio-economic and cultural development.

The summary conclusions and key recommendations of the mission are as follows:

Verige Bridge

The mission noted that the current location of the Verige bridge is 2.5 km away from the World Heritage property and welcomed the fact that another site within the boundaries of the property had been rejected. The mission however recommended that the following steps be urgently undertaken:

a) Definition and delineation of a buffer zone around the core area of the property as requested since 2003 to enhance protection in accordance with Paragraphs 103 to 107 of the Operational Guidelines; The mission urged the authorities to clearly define such a buffer zone for the protection of the property and take into account the integral aspects of the whole Boca Kotorska. This region has an overall cohesion integrating cultural and natural aspects into a cultural landscape;

b) Commissioning of a visual impact study for the current bridge proposal taking into consideration the outstanding universal value of the property and its landscape setting, within the whole territory of the Boca Kotorska, including the World Heritage property and its surroundings (future buffer zone), as well as important views (specifically between Perast and the Adriatic Sea), and connection lines; The authorities could consider carrying out either a separate visual impact study or integrating it in the overall environmental impact assessment (EIA) required for the project. The mission further discussed that other geographical and technical options may exist which could also be taken into consideration. The mission concluded that no bridge construction should be allowed prior to the delineation of a buffer zone already requested in 2003 and the visual impact study.

c) In case other bridge or tunnel options are considered, environmental and cultural impact assessments should be carried out, including visual impacts;

Management

The draft management plan submitted in 2007 was reviewed by ICOMOS and ICCROM. It was also reviewed by the mission, which recommended that it be approved after completing it with the legal protection, clear delineation of a buffer zone, and adequate tools to implement it. The mission also suggested a better coordination among the institutions and authorities involved and a review of its status versus different other plans. The mission further noted that the management system is not adequate due to the lack of a specific site manager (although the Institute had been nominated) and effective control mechanisms. An advisory committee could be created with international expert consultation. No financial commitment by the government is currently foreseen in the management mechanism. The mission urged the authorities to ensure optimal coordination among different plans and legal instruments including the Spatial Plan of Montenegro (1996/2008), the Law on Coastal Zones (2008), municipal plans, urban development and zoning plans. The mission noted that the legal framework for the property is not adequate and expressed concern about the ongoing and accelerated urban development of the Kotor region. The dynamics of these transformation processes are beyond prediction and existing institutions cannot cope with it. The lack or consensus between private and public interests is linked with the lack of coordination between different planning instruments; The mission recommended developing an Integral Urban and Spatial Plan for the whole area which covers the three communities of Kotor, Tivat, and Hezeg Novi to ensure integrated planning and development processes in the region.

Conservation

The mission noted that the state of conservation of the historic city of Kotor is adequate with excellent restoration works. The Regional Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments in Kotor closely works with municipalities and communities on the protection, restoration and valorisation of cultural heritage monuments and ensembles. The mission however points out that the overall cultural landscape is not taken into account in a holistic manner and that professional expertise in this regard could be strengthened. The mission noted that all development and infrastructure projects need to be taken into account within this overall framework. This includes ongoing traffic developments. The full report of the joint mission is available at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2008.

3. Noting the results of the February 2008 World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS mission to the property to examine the suitability of the proposed bridge at Verige and its impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

4. Notes with appreciation the State Party's excellent conservation work and commends the State Party for cooperating with stakeholders in the conservation work;

5. Urges the State Party to consider protective mechanisms including a feasibility study for a buffer zone to better protect the property

6. Invites the State Party to consider re-nominating an enlarged area around the bay as a cultural landscape;

7. Requests the State Party to take into account the detailed recommendations of the joint mission and also urges the authorities to carry out a visual impact study of the Verige bridge project;

8. Also requests the State Party to carry out detailed environmental, cultural and visual impact studies in the event that other bridge or tunnel options are considered in the future;

9. Further requests the State Party to consider all other geographical and technical options which may replace the Verige Bridge project and would eliminate negative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value;

10. Encourages the State Party to complete the management plan after having put in place adequate legal and protective measures, and appropriate resources; and further requests the State Party, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, to develop a draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value including the conditions of integrity and authenticity, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009;

11. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, a copy of the visual impact study and a progress report on the approval and implementation of the management plan, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.

3. Noting the results of the February 2008 World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS mission to the property to examine the suitability of the proposed bridge at Verige and its impacts on the outstanding universal value of the property and its landscape values,

4. Urges the State Party to delineate a buffer zone to better protect the property and consider re-nominating an enlarged area around the bay as a cultural landscape;

5. Requests the State Party to take into account the detailed recommendations of the joint mission and also urges the authorities to carry out a visual impact study of the Verige bridge project;

6. Also requests the State Party to carry out detailed environmental, cultural and visual impact studies in the event that other bridge or tunnel options are considered in the future;

7. Encourages the State Party to complete the management plan after having put in place adequate legal protection, a buffer zone and appropriate resources; and further requests the State Party, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, to develop a draft Statement of outstanding universal value including the conditions of integrity and authenticity, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009;

8. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, a copy of the visual impact study and a progress report on the approval and implementation of the management plan, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.

* :
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).